Bill Clinton Vs. George Bush: Who was the better President?

Okay, so my mother keeps telling me that George Bush was the best president of all time. Whenever I ask her why, she's never really given me a straight answer. In my opinion, Bill Clinton is a little better. I asked some friends while I was buying some lovely flowers for my dog which was better because I was curious.

They all said Bush. I'm no political pro, but I'm starting to feel paranoid about my opinion, perhaps I have it all wrong...?

So OT, who do you think is the better president?

I used to hate on George Bush hardcore when I was younger. I blame living in a democratic heavy area, but when I look back at it. I don't think he was a terrible president, actually I think he was a good president. He just became a scapegoat for america's problems. I don't think we can compare Clinton with Bush considering the very different circumstances during their presidency, but gun to my head I would say Clinton.

there was no 10 year war under ClintonDivergeUnify

Clinton gun ban was worse than Patriot act

That act was the biggest unconstitutional, unaffective, and stupidly written piece of political garbage pased in a long time.(though the new proposed anti-piracy bills may 1up it :( )

So I go with Bush as less bad

Clinton gun ban was worse than Patriot act

So I go with Bush as less bad

dercoo

Clinton for sure. Bush had worse luckduring his years but still, we continue to pay for the debt and mistakes of that administration.

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

Clinton gun ban was worse than Patriot act

So I go with Bush as less bad

Diviniuz

[QUOTE="Diviniuz"][QUOTE="dercoo"]

Clinton gun ban was worse than Patriot act

So I go with Bush as less bad

DroidPhysX

plus why would you want assault rifles being sold? Are you defending yourself from packs of raptors that know how to open doors?

[QUOTE="Diviniuz"][QUOTE="dercoo"]

Clinton gun ban was worse than Patriot act

So I go with Bush as less bad

DroidPhysX

I learned in TF2 that if I am able to properly operate a firearm, that I can kill them for sappin' mah sentry.

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

Clinton gun ban was worse than Patriot act

So I go with Bush as less bad

Diviniuz

1. it was unconstitutional and disregarding the 2nd amendment.Citizens are suposed to have access to weapons comparible to the military's to be able to overthrough any corrupt government.

2. It was poorly written. Many weapons were quite literally banned for looking bad(seriously, look it up. Complete bull ****)

3. It had no affect on crime at all. At least not any one measurable.

Inn the end. It restricted US businesses, spiked prices on firearm & parts, took away rights, and had no affect on crime.

Well, for one your mom's dead wrong. Two, I dunno. Bush had the Iraq War, the financial crisis, needless tax cuts, a Medicare plan that was basically a handout to big pharm, deregulation, delisting natural protection in favor of drilling, and was essentially the worst President in terms of foreign policy and national image. That being said, Clinton passed NAFTA, I'd say they're about even.

You're asking Liberal OT who's better between a Democratic President and a Republican President?

I'll sit back and wait for the laughs, insults, and eventual lock.

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"] there was no 10 year war under ClintonDiviniuz

[QUOTE="Diviniuz"]

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

Clinton gun ban was worse than Patriot act

So I go with Bush as less bad

dercoo

1. it was unconstitutional and disregarding the 2nd amendment.

2. It was poorly written. Many weapons were quite literally banned for looking bad(seriously, look it up. Complete bull ****)

3. It had no affect on crime at all. At least not any one measurable.

I don't think the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional if i recall correctly.

So that would be only your opinion.

it was unconstitutional and disregarding the 2nd amendment.dercoo

To be considered unconstitutional the judical branch has to deem it that way...

You're asking Liberal OT who's better between a Democratic President and a Republican President?

I'll sit back and wait for the laughs, insults, and eventual lock.

ad1x2

Nobody here is going to call Bush the better President. It's a pointless thread because of that.

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]

You're asking Liberal OT who's better between a Democratic President and a Republican President?

I'll sit back and wait for the laughs, insults, and eventual lock.

DroidPhysX

Oh yeah it is. A handful of conservative posters aside, this is one of the most liberal places I've ever seen even after 5 years of college.

[QUOTE="dercoo"]it was unconstitutional and disregarding the 2nd amendment.Diviniuz

To be considered unconstitutional the judical branch has to deem it that way...

Since when in the last 50 years has the supreme court given a crap about what's constitutional? They vote on party lines alone.

You're asking Liberal OT who's better between a Democratic President and a Republican President?

I'll sit back and wait for the laughs, insults, and eventual lock.

ad1x2

Yes, what an infallible argument, people frequently disagree with me in OT therefore it's a liberal haven intent on destroying conservativism at every turn. The persecution complex is old, tired, and played out.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="ad1x2"]

You're asking Liberal OT who's better between a Democratic President and a Republican President?

I'll sit back and wait for the laughs, insults, and eventual lock.

Wasdie

Oh yeah it is. A handful of conservative posters aside, this is one of the most liberal places I've ever seen even after 5 years of college.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="ad1x2"]

You're asking Liberal OT who's better between a Democratic President and a Republican President?

I'll sit back and wait for the laughs, insults, and eventual lock.

Wasdie

Oh yeah it is. A handful of conservative posters aside, this is one of the most liberal places I've ever seen even after 5 years of college.

Maybe you went to a conservative college, or maybe you only hung out around conservatives in college. It's very likely that you are suffering from selection bias.

They vote on party lines alone.

Wasdie

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] OTs not as liberal as you would think.DroidPhysX

Oh yeah it is. A handful of conservative posters aside, this is one of the most liberal places I've ever seen even after 5 years of college.

[QUOTE="Diviniuz"]

[QUOTE="dercoo"]it was unconstitutional and disregarding the 2nd amendment.Wasdie

To be considered unconstitutional the judical branch has to deem it that way...

Since when in the last 50 years has the supreme court given a crap about what's constitutional? They vote on party lines alone.

[QUOTE="dercoo"]it was unconstitutional and disregarding the 2nd amendment.Diviniuz

To be considered unconstitutional the judical branch has to deem it that way...

How long did separate but equal go without challenge, and finaly declared unconsititutional.

Clinton ban had 10 years, then collapsed in on itself

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] OTs not as liberal as you would think.theone86

Oh yeah it is. A handful of conservative posters aside, this is one of the most liberal places I've ever seen even after 5 years of college.

Maybe you went to a conservative college, or maybe you only hung out around conservatives in college. It's very likely that you are suffering from selection bias.

Conservative college? Unless you go to a private Christan school there is no such thing as a conservative college.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] OTs not as liberal as you would think.DroidPhysX

Oh yeah it is. A handful of conservative posters aside, this is one of the most liberal places I've ever seen even after 5 years of college.

I've always said this about OT, there are a few extremely liberal posters and a few extremely conservative posters, and the rest fall somewhere in between, just like in America at large. Also just as in the general population, the people in the far two segments always complain that everyone is biased against them, typically specifically because their arguments lie so far outside the norm that they don't identify with the largest group of people and therefore feel as if their position is being persecuted, whether it is or not. Short answer, there's a healthy mix.

[QUOTE="Diviniuz"]

[QUOTE="dercoo"]it was unconstitutional and disregarding the 2nd amendment.dercoo

To be considered unconstitutional the judical branch has to deem it that way...

How long did separate but equal go without challenge, and finaly declared unconsititutional.

Clinton ban had 10 years, then collapsed in on itself

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Oh yeah it is. A handful of conservative posters aside, this is one of the most liberal places I've ever seen even after 5 years of college.

Wasdie

Maybe you went to a conservative college, or maybe you only hung out around conservatives in college. It's very likely that you are suffering from selection bias.

Conservative college? Unless you go to a private Christan school there is no such thing as a conservative college.

And this is exactly my point. You define conservatism as a mutually exclusive far-right brand, and when you don't see a ton of people sharing that viewpoint you jump to the conclusion that conservatism is being persecuted. In reality, the actual scope of opinions is very broad and you inability to identify with the vast majority of people in any given place (OT, colleges) is more a result of your own ideology lying further outside the mainstream than any huge concentration of liberals.

[QUOTE="Diviniuz"]

[QUOTE="dercoo"]it was unconstitutional and disregarding the 2nd amendment.dercoo

To be considered unconstitutional the judical branch has to deem it that way...

How long did separate but equal go without challenge, and finaly declared unconsititutional.

Clinton ban had 10 years, then collapsed in on itself

Constitutionality is completely and solely dependent on the Supreme Court. That is what the branch is for. I think a lot of people lose sight on that or really don't understand.

We can't really say something is really constitutional or not, we can speculate on it and have an opinion in it of course.

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]

You're asking Liberal OT who's better between a Democratic President and a Republican President?

I'll sit back and wait for the laughs, insults, and eventual lock.

theone86

Yes, what an infallible argument, people frequently disagree with me in OT therefore it's a liberal haven intent on destroying conservativism at every turn. The persecution complex is old, tired, and played out.

I supported Bush, and Clinton. That's pretty much unheard of, with people assuming if I liked Bush I must hate Clintonor vice versa. Clinton was my hero for getting his groove on when it happened since I was still in high school at the time and a slightly overweight woman in her early 20s seemed like a better choice than Hillary Clinton. Looking back, I can't really say I feel too much different although the adultery part isn't something I can condone.

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]

You're asking Liberal OT who's better between a Democratic President and a Republican President?

I'll sit back and wait for the laughs, insults, and eventual lock.

DroidPhysX

Guess I screwed up and derailed the topic, my bad.

Booze is on me as a consolation, I got about six kegs waiting to pop.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]

You're asking Liberal OT who's better between a Democratic President and a Republican President?

I'll sit back and wait for the laughs, insults, and eventual lock.

ad1x2

Yes, what an infallible argument, people frequently disagree with me in OT therefore it's a liberal haven intent on destroying conservativism at every turn. The persecution complex is old, tired, and played out.

I supported Bush, and Clinton. That's pretty much unheard of, with people assuming if I liked Bush I must hate Clintonor vice versa. Clinton was my hero for getting his groove on when it happened since I was still in high school at the time and a slightly overweight woman in her early 20s seemed like a better choice than Hillary Clinton. Looking back, I can't really say I feel too much different although the adultery part isn't something I can condone.

Does any of what you said change any of what I said? Not in the slightest.

Clinton was miles better than both Bushes combined

my favorite president is still JFK...guy literally prevented the world from being blown up.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="ad1x2"]

You're asking Liberal OT who's better between a Democratic President and a Republican President?

I'll sit back and wait for the laughs, insults, and eventual lock.

Ace6301

Also Clinton. Clinton's one of the better presidents of the last 50 years and you're pitting him against a pretty bad one.

He did balance the budget, but I just can't get over NAFTA. The balanced budget didn't last, NAFTA did. And saying he's one of the better of the last fifty years isn't saying much. You've got both Bushes, Carter (which I would actually dispute, but it's kind of universally accepted anyways), Nixon, and Ford in that period of time, not exactly a great track record. You've also got Reagan and Kennedy, both of whom I think were worse than their legacies, and then Johnson who was up and down. He had some pretty poor decisions on Vietnam, but was great on civil rights.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] OTs not as liberal as you would think.theone86

Also Clinton. Clinton's one of the better presidents of the last 50 years and you're pitting him against a pretty bad one.

He did balance the budget, but I just can't get over NAFTA. The balanced budget didn't last.

Oh gee, I wonder why that was oh wait George Bush.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] OTs not as liberal as you would think.theone86

Also Clinton. Clinton's one of the better presidents of the last 50 years and you're pitting him against a pretty bad one.

He did balance the budget, but I just can't get over NAFTA. The balanced budget didn't last, NAFTA did. And saying he's one of the better of the last fifty years isn't saying much. You've got both Bushes, Carter (which I would actually dispute, but it's kind of universally accepted anyways), Nixon, and Ford in that period of time, not exactly a great track record. You've also got Reagan and Kennedy, both of whom I think were worse than their legacies, and then Johnson who was up and down. He had some pretty poor decisions on Vietnam, but was great on civil rights.

Clinton was baller oh and http://youtu.be/FfXJhsdUBm0

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] It's certainly become far more conservative leaning the last year, that's for sure. Also Wasdie you should go to Reddit r/politics if you think OT is liberal.

Also Clinton. Clinton's one of the better presidents of the last 50 years and you're pitting him against a pretty bad one.Ace6301

He did balance the budget, but I just can't get over NAFTA. The balanced budget didn't last, NAFTA did. And saying he's one of the better of the last fifty years isn't saying much. You've got both Bushes, Carter (which I would actually dispute, but it's kind of universally accepted anyways), Nixon, and Ford in that period of time, not exactly a great track record. You've also got Reagan and Kennedy, both of whom I think were worse than their legacies, and then Johnson who was up and down. He had some pretty poor decisions on Vietnam, but was great on civil rights.

That is true. While I think Bill was mostly playing the political game that, while lamentable, has been in place forever, Bush was actively pushing an ideology based upon making government as ineffective as possible and using government money to support large corporations while cutting taxes and increasing the burden on working people. Now that I bring it up, though, remember that Greenspan was supported under the Clinton presidency as well, and some of the biggest opponents of trickle-down (Robert Reich) quit the Clinton administration. But yeah, still, I think much of Bush's presidency was actively intended to make people lose faith in government, which makes him worse than Clinton. Also, come to think of it I don't really think many presidents from all of history are great, so I'm not sure that specifying the last fifty years would make all that much of a difference.